No.

The conversation is live and on-going, and it will continue ad infinitum as long as the Government is committed to mainstreaming culture and realising across Government the full potential benefits of the culture and the arts sector.

We have not fully understood the potential of some aspects of that. As I have mentioned to people around this table in previous evidence sessions—I am sorry; I should at this point give a warm welcome to the new members of the committee, for whom this is my first evidence session—it is clear to most people that there are benefits that can accrue in health and education and perhaps in justice and other policy areas. Most people think, “Well, that might benefit patients in health settings, children or young people in education or prisoners in a justice setting.” However, it is not just those people who benefit; those who work in the health service, those who teach and those who work in our justice system benefit, too.

There are, therefore, real opportunities that we need to explore, but explore in the round. After all, if there are interventions that can help with mental health, anxiety and a range of things that impact on the workforce as well as patients, pupils and so on, there is hope to believe that they will not only be of intrinsic value to all the people who might be helped but have an impact—there is some evidence to show this—on working patterns in public services. Across Government, we need to understand that this is not only something that potentially has a cost but something that brings savings. I think that we all understand what the advantages beyond the financial ones are, but there is still a financial dimension to all this, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on helping people to understand that mainstreaming culture—or, say, introducing social prescribing—not only has a cost but brings a benefit that offsets existing outgoings.

I welcome Mr Stewart to the committee. When he met the people outside the Scottish Parliament, I am not sure whether he brought up, by way of reassurance, the avowed commitments of Creative Scotland and its reserves. I do not know whether he took the opportunity to reassure people that there would be no detriment, which was in the public realm at that stage. It is important that, when we are in receipt of the facts, we all make sure that we use them to assuage concerns that are less well-founded. I think that we have been able to do that today in relation to Creative Scotland, its funding and its use of reserves.

I totally acknowledge the wider anxieties and concerns. Mr Stewart has definitely given me food for thought about how we report on the considerable efforts of our organisations, whether it be Creative Scotland, Screen Scotland or others, which have been working tirelessly with organisations that are suffering distress. I certainly would not want any impression to be created that there is a lack of intervention, concern or impact from our agencies that are assisting. I put on record my appreciation for everybody who is involved in that.

Maybe the issue is in the nature of the matter. We are often talking about commercial organisations that have been getting into difficult situations, and not everybody wants such information to be in the public space, but I give Mr Stewart the absolute assurance that there have regularly been game-changing interventions. Scottish Government-funded public organisations are assisting the cultural sector to get through these difficult times.

Mr Stewart has mentioned the culture strategy and updated documents. Where possible, we can provide case studies about, insight into and understanding of the assistance that has been provided to help venues, organisations and individual artists to continue to work in the sector. There is a challenge—it certainly applied during Covid and it remains for some—of people making decisions about whether they want to or can remain active in the culture and creative sector. We need to do everything that we can to give people the best support to do that.

Mr Stewart definitely leaves a thought with me that I will take away. I will be happy to update the committee on how we can inform all members about the interventions that are making profound impacts. That would be beneficial. The committee has heard from Iain Munro and Isabel Davis; I have no doubt that they will be back and I am sure that they would be happy to provide you with the information that they can provide, because they are doing the heavy lifting in all this, which I am very appreciative of.

I am always open to working with authorities furth of Scotland. In the case of the world championships, British Cycling was a wider UK organisation with which we worked very closely and very well to deliver an event that involved a GB team performing at an event in Scotland that was funded through the Scottish Government. We have to work our way through. Sometimes, Scotland competes internationally as an independent country; in other cases, it competes in a wider GB or UK context. There will always be a discussion with UK authorities and UK Government partners about how we can do all of that.

However, as we debated in the chamber the other day, if funding is to be provided in areas for which devolved oversight is in this place, there is an as yet unresolved issue about the ability of parliamentarians to scrutinise how all that works. The committee will have me in—I cannot remember how many times I have given evidence and I will happily continue to do that—but it is now par for the course that UK Government ministers refuse to give evidence to this Parliament, even though they are becoming ever more involved in devolved areas, and not always in benign ways. Where we can work together, however, we will, such as through the home nations’ approach to the forthcoming footballing events. We will be working with other Governments in the UK, the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the footballing authorities. As we have shown with other events, we are more than capable of doing that and we want to do that in the future.

We will look, but I do not think that we will find it. The big difference between all the places that Mr Brown outlined and Scotland is their financial ability to raise income in a way that the Scottish Government does not have. I have heard claims in the past couple of days about how Scotland has the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, which is frankly not true. A number of the places that Mr Brown mentioned have significant powers beyond Scotland’s in order to secure the financial means to deal with situations in a time of extremis. Scotland is extremely constrained in our budgetary powers and ability to find additional moneys in times of financial distress.

That is why, in this context, it is mission critical to understand that where we have reserves in the public purse, so to speak, if and when we reach a rainy day when we really need the funds to get ourselves through difficult times, we are able to use them. That is exactly what we have done, and we have done it in a way that will not provide detriment to, in this case, Creative Scotland. That is a good thing.

There is a wider issue going forward, and no doubt the committee will have me back for further evidence sessions about the budget in future years. I will be delighted to hear from MSPs of both governing and Opposition parties if there are serious proposals to increase, in this case, the culture budget, including from where the money will come. I have not heard that once in my time as culture secretary.

In relation to the V&A Dundee specifically, Brexit has had an impact, especially on European Union citizens who may not be able to work there. We know that, within the artistic and wider cultural community, there are all kinds of issues relating to freedom of movement. I am very keen that we make sure that we fully embrace the opportunities that have been created by the V&A’s outstanding tartan exhibition and its ambition that that should tour internationally. I will be looking very closely at how we can work with the V&A in order to make sure that that happens.

The Scottish Government has long been a supporter of V&A Dundee. I recognise the V&A Dundee’s important work and the positive impact that it is making in supporting the city, the wider region and Scotland. The Scottish Government would welcome exploration of further joint projects with notable institutions, subject to robust business cases.

Presiding Officer, I am sure that you would be reminding me that I should be answering questions about the V&A, rather than about UK Government announcements that bypass the Scottish Parliament—[Interruption.] I know that members on the Tory front bench do not like to hear that.

The Scottish Government intends to continue to support to V&A Dundee in order to enable it to continue to deliver, including on its ambition of being Scotland’s national design centre. Exact funding levels will be confirmed during the budget process.

Clearly, in summing up, I am reflecting on all the contributions, and I will come to Stephen Kerr’s shortly.

I pay tribute to Dr Alasdair Allan for his speech and to Foysol Choudhury for his summing up, although, again, I raise with him the question of when a Labour Government would repeal the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. Some commitment will have to be made on that front, and on Sewel.

I turn to disappointing contributions from colleagues, and I must start with the learned gentleman on the Conservative Party front bench, Mr Cameron. I will concentrate on what he did not say, because, although what we say is important, what he did not say is of note. He did not, or could not, condemn the overriding of the Scottish Parliament or the Senedd, which, as has been pointed out a number of times, Mark Drakeford has been able to do very powerfully. I quote from Mr Drakeford, giving evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee on 17 July 2021. He said:

“When it became inconvenient for the UK Government to observe Sewel, they just went ahead and rode roughshod through it.”

He also said:

“More recently, I am afraid, the Sewel convention has withered on the vine.”

He has been prepared to be outspoken, and the Conservative Party should be as well. Mr Cameron also did not, could not or would not criticise the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, and its, frankly, malign impact on devolution. He prayed NFU Scotland in aid at one stage. It would be helpful to read the record of the views of NFU Scotland. Its written evidence, from Jonnie Hall, went as follows:

“it is the clear view of NFU Scotland that the principles now embedded in the UK Internal Market Act (IMA) 2020 pose a significant threat to the development of Common Frameworks and to devolved policy.”

I cannot omit a point that was made by the members on the Conservative front bench, Donald Cameron and Alexander Stewart. First, the comparison with the European Union is spurious, because the difference between UK devolution, which is not functioning well, and European Union additionality was that, in the European Union, Scottish legislators in the European Parliament had oversight of EU spending, and those funds were disbursed through the Scottish Office, which became the Scottish Government.

The claim about this Parliament being the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world will come as news—especially on the day of German unity—to anybody who knows anything about government in Germany, where the Bundesländer are involved in federal decision making.

I could go on to speak about Willie Rennie’s contribution—the Liberal Democrats were once the proud party of home rule—but he had nothing positive to say, describing these constitutional questions as “noddy debates”. Stephen Kerr would not even acknowledge that his party opposed devolution. Jackson Carlaw said that the Sewel convention should be “respected as such”, but the point is that it is not, and his party should reflect on that. Alexander Stewart said at one point that there is nothing to replace the 2020 act, which is factually inaccurate, because common frameworks were established to do just that, before the Trojan horse of the 2020 act was passed by the UK Government.

Since 2016, the UK Government has taken a range of actions that have damaged devolution and the powers of the Scottish Parliament. As we have heard, the UK Government has passed legislation without the Scottish Parliament’s agreement, that reduces the Parliament’s powers and allows UK ministers to make further changes unilaterally, such as making provisions on healthcare subject to the 2020 act. It has given powers to UK ministers to intervene directly in matters within the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament—again, without the Scottish Parliament’s agreement. It has undermined the Sewel convention that the Westminster Parliament

“will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”

It has now done so on 11 occasions and has turned the Sewel convention on its head by insisting on consent as a condition for lodging agreed amendments to the Energy Bill, as we have heard.

The UK Government has for the first time blocked legislation on devolved matters that has been passed by the Scottish Parliament. It has taken forward legislation, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, that puts at risk EU laws on environmental protection, food standards and other devolved matters. It has taken a direct role in devolved policy and decisions on public spending on devolved matters, bypassing the Scottish Parliament and diverting funding from priorities here.

There was always a risk that the Brexit process would result in greater centralisation in Whitehall and Westminster. Fundamental changes can now be seen in the relationship between the Governments and the Parliaments of Westminster and Holyrood—as well as, incidentally, the Welsh Senedd, which is, obviously, not led by the Scottish National Party. My view is shared by the Welsh Government, as it is by the Scottish Government. No doubt, if there was a functioning Government in Northern Ireland, it would also share those views.

Far from the Scottish Government provoking constitutional clashes, it is the UK Government that has intervened in devolved areas either to prevent the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament from progressing with our policies, whether it be recycling or gender recognition, or to impose UK Government policies. The UK Government’s approach increasingly asserts Whitehall and Westminster’s authority over the Scottish Parliament and Government in a way that has not been seen previously.

The Scottish Government is clear that the Internal Market Act 2020 should be repealed, and we invite the Parliament to support that view. The threat to the powers of the Scottish Parliament and the undermining of the institutions of devolution are real and urgent. They should concern everyone who supports the Parliament, regardless of their party allegiance.

I think that I am right in inferring that the Scottish Labour Party will support the amended motion, given that we will support the Labour Party’s amendment. In doing so, the Labour Party will be supporting the repeal of the internal market act. When would an incoming Labour Government repeal that act?